Re: config(5) break down

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt%softjar.se@localhost>
wrote:
> Julio Merino wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Masao Uebayashi
>> <uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me clarify:
>>>
>>> - NetBSD is used for many purposes.
>>> - The official binary should choose the sane default
>>> - FFS_EI enabled by default
>>> - XIP would be disabled by default
>>> - While leave developers freedom to customize NetBSD more.
>>
>> Err, no. BOTH developers and users should have the freedom to
>> customize NetBSD, not only developers. And, of course, users should
>> not have to rebuild anything, ever. If we can't provide such a
>> binary-friendly system, we have failed as developers. And it's
>> possible to provide such a system, as has been proven by Solaris,
>> Windows and, increasingly, Linux.
>
> So what are you saying here? That our goal is to be like Solaris, Windows
> and Linux?
I never said that. But last I read, NetBSD has never been targeted
exclusively to people working on embedded systems.
> What is the point in that? There already exist several systems (as you note)
> who are that. Do you expect NetBSD to be in that same segment?
I expect NetBSD to be as flexible as reasonably possible with the
binaries we distribute. If we have to tell any user "rebuild the
software with option foo" to get what they want, we have failed at
that. And most users will run away.
Again, what I meant is: providing the source code of any application
is not an excuse to having a deficient design that does not allow
extensibility or customization without rebuilding. And that's
orthogonal to being Solaris or whatever.
--
Julio Merino